Congressional Documents
[Page: S2446]
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the resolution of ratification for the treaty (Treaty Doc. No. 105-36) supra; as follows:
In section 3(2)(A), strike `Prior' and insert `Subject to subparagraph (C), prior'.
In section 3(2)(B)(i), strike `Not' and insert `Subject to subparagraph (C), not later than 180 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, and not'.
At the end of section 3(2), add the following new subparagraph:
(C) Resolution of approval:
(i) In general.--Prior to the date of deposit of the United States instrument of ratification, the Senate has adopted a resolution, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, stating in substance the approval of the certification under subparagraph (A), and the first report required to be submitted under subparagraph (B).
(ii) Procedures: A resolution described in subparagraph (A)(ii) that is introduced on or after the date of certification under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am filing an amendment to the resolution of ratification for the proposed expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
As the Senate begins debate about expansion, I think it is fair to say that most Senators--whether they favor, oppose, or are undecided about the proposed treaty revision--can all agree that the issue of cost to the U.S. taxpayer is of great concern. Unfortunately, these costs are yet to be determined. The Administration claims the NATO expansion bill for the U.S. will be approximately $1 billion. On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office contends it will cost taxpayers $125 billion. Given the enormous discrepancy between the estimates, it only makes sense that we know what actual costs will be before we make an irrevocable decision to enlarge NATO.
I would like to commend the Foreign Relations Committee for their fine work in crafting language detailing American cost obligations to NATO. However, there seems to be one problem: all of this cost related information will be made available to Congress only after the Senate's advice and consent to expansion is final and irrevocable. That means if the information is not satisfactory to the Senate, we will have no recourse.
The amendment I am filing simply provides that the Congress has the fullest possible information as to what we will pay for, before we commit to the United States to this tremendous political and economic decision by requiring a Senate vote of approval related to cost, benefits, burden-sharing, and military implications of NATO enlargement prior to the President depositing the instruments of ratification.
[Page: S2447]